What Makes a Good Politician? Part II

               The post of this week is another text about politicians. We have to know how to choose well who will govern our city or our country, because after, our regret will be costly for us and for our children. The people must take care at the election time, but after as well, following the elected and demanding a productive and good job. This post is a summary of four articles. The first was published at   https://siyli.org/what-is-leadership-what-makes-good-leader/. The second was published in August of 2016 at          http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/funkhouser/gov-depression-politics.html, The third was published in October of 2015 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/why-the-victims-of-personal-tragedy-often-make-better-politicians/?utm_term=.1af83137ae41. The fourth was published at ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

                There are many definitions of leadership. One great definition is: "Leadership is the art of leading other to deliberately create a result that would not happened otherwise." It is not just the creation of results that makes good leadership. Good leaders are able to deliberately create challenging results by enlisting the help of others. What makes a good leader? Here are some of their most important characteristics: 1) Self-Awareness - You have an intimate knowledge of your inner emotional state. You know yourself, including your capabilities and your limitations, which allows you to push yourself to your maximum potential. 2) Self-Direction - You are able to direct yourself effectively and powerfully. You know how to get things done, how to organize tasks and how to avoid procrastination. You know how to generate energy for projects. You can make decisions quickly when necessary, but can also slow to consider all the options on the table. 3) Vision - You're working towards a goal that is greater than yourself. 4) Ability to Motivate - Leaders do not lead by telling people what they have to do. Instead, leaders cause people to want help them. A key part of this is cultivating your own desire to help others. When others sense that you want to help them, they in turn want to help you. 5) Social Awareness - Understanding social nerworks and key influencers in that social network is another key part of leadership. 6) Emotional Intelligence -  Leaders with high E.I. are intrinsically more self-aware. They understand their mental processes and know how to direct themselves. They naturally care more for other and receive more compassion in return.

                 The social stigma of depression has increased over the last several decades. Abraham Lincoln had many crises in his life, in fact his chronic depression was widely recognized. He took no pains to hide his moods. He viewed his condition, as Joshua Wolf wrote in his book, "Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled his Greatness." as part of the natural world, to be studied, understood, and when possible, managed. I have never read that Lincoln's enemies saw his depression as a weakness to be exploited. But somewhere along the way that changed. Depression have been stigmatized and hidden away, especially by those who aspire to positions of leadership. The irony of all this is that an argument can be made that, as Joshua and others believe was true for Lincoln, being depressed can actually make you a better leader. These concurrent crises are complex, but there are at least two things a politician can do. First, recognized the need to build opportunities for people to connect with one another and develop a sense of community and cohesion. Second, lead the way in destigmatizing depression.

                Ken Mehlman, who managed George Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, once observed that voters size up presidential candidates based not on their policy prescriptions but in terms of their characters and "attributes." The attribute I am referring to is, for lack of a better term, personal suffering, or the politics of grief. Grief matters in politics, and not because it makes a candidate more effective. Grief matters because it can serve as the source of public empathy and political authenticity, counteracting and becoming a tonic for much of the cynism that continue to corrode politics. Personal grief has defined and shaped the approach to public affairs of some of our most iconic politicians, including president Franklin D. Roosevelt, senator Robert Kennedy and presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The grief politicians experienced often became source of fuel for their work ethic and public achievements. It is hardly armchair psychoanalysis to assert a link between politicians' enduring private pains and righting wrongs in the public arena as a way to compensate for such pain. The pattern has deep roots in our politics. Former three-term N.Y. mayor Fiorello La Guardia lost his infant daughter and his first wife to tuberculosis in 1921, and the adversity lent his politics a fierce focus. In addition, their deaths, caused by a disease typically spread in the city's tenements, crystallized for him the distinction between the wealthy with access to sanitation and those forced to live on the margins, more susceptible to the diseases and poverty's hazards. His suffering helped make him a authentic politician. La Guardia became a workaholic and a champion of underprivileged New Yorkers. His private grief formed his capacity to empathize with ordinary citizens' hardships. Two of his contenporaries, Eleanor and Franklin D. Roosevelt, similarly found their public calling partly as a direct result of their personal suffering. As a young girl, Eleanor lost her parents, including one to alcoholism. As a young married couple in 1909, the Roosevelts lost their newborn son with a heart condition to influenza. Eleanor described her very public work as the best antidote she knew for her private grief, and her pain deepened her already capacious symphathy for others' plight. In 1921, Franklin D. Rooselvelt contracted polio and began using a wheelchair, giving this leader an uncanny ability to grasp and articulate the pain felt by millions of citizens amid the broader suffering inflicted by the Great Depression. Personal tragedies enable much of the public to regard their leaders, who have suffered so, as vulnerable, ordinary people with uncommon reservoirs of resiliency and humanity. Ronald Reagan's alcoholic father, as Reagan suggested in his memoirs, was somebody he felt impelled to help, a parable of a citizen who aids those in their hour of need. Similarly, Clinton reflected that his father's death in a car accident powered his political ambitions, framing his life's work. Losing his father made the president feel "that I had to live for two people" and that his future achievements "somehow could make up for the life he should have had." There is no way to quantify or compare suffering among various politicians. And just because a political leader suffers does not magically transform him or her into an authentic, more empathic tribune for the hopes and setbacks experienced by millions of ordinary citizens. Yet, looking at the 2016 field, it is hard not to notice that few of our political leaders have suffered as much as the vice president Joe Biden has. Most have lived charmed lives. The media's interest on his candidacy, rest upon a sense that he was unusually well-qualified to grasp ordinary people's fears, hardships and daily struggles.

                A politician is a person active in politics. In democratic countries, politicians seek elective positions within a government through elections or, at times, temporary appointment to replace politicians who have died, resigned or have been removed from office. Politicians propose, support and create laws or policies that govern the land and, by extension, its people. Broadly speaking, a politician can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureacratic institution. Numerous scholars have studied the characteristics of politicians, comparing those at the local and national levels, and comparing the more liberal or the more conservative ones, and comparing the more successful and less successful in terms of elections. In recent years, special attention has focused on the distinctive career path of women politicians. Many critics attacks politicians for being out of touch with the public. Areas of friction include the manner in which politicians speak, which has been described as being overly formal and filled with many euphemistic and metaphorical expressions and commonly perceived as an attempt to "obscure, mislead, and confuse". 

                

What Makes a Good Politician?

               Next 2nd of October there will be election. The future of our city and our country depend on who will be chosen. In this decade of activism I have been trying educate the people about important issues for us citizens, issues to improve our democracy, our citizenship, our development, our lives, so I hope everybody are prepared to make good choices. This post is a summary of four articles. The first with the title above was published at http://centeroncongress.org/what-makes-good-politician. The second was published at http://www.beliefnet.com/inspiration/galleries/top-5-qualities-of-good-political-leaders.aspx. The third was published at http://www.leadershipexpert.co.uk/political-leader.html. The fourth was published at http://www.pinoyguyguide.com/2010/05/choosing-the-right-candidate-for-the-elections.html

               Members of Congress play a central role in our lives. They shape our health-care system, make crucial decisions about the economy, and represent the hopes and interest of every citizen in the capital. Given this fact, I am always surprised that little attention is focused on examining closely whether someone serving in or running for Congress or City Council has the personal attributes it takes to be an effective member of the institutions. If someone's behavior is shady or unsavory, that will make the news, But the qualities and skills that set good politicians apart should draw more notice. Chief among those qualities is honesty. The public may believe that politics is a dirty business, but effective members of Congress must be trustworthy. They understand that to work     together over the years, they must level with their colleagues. The same is true in their dealings with citizens. The best politicians also sustain an unusually high energy level and an ability to focus on the task at hand. They tend to have few hobbies, for the simple reason that public office is all-consuming. Most good politicians are also ambitious, on fire with the wish to make something of themselves, and though many see this in personal terms, it usually means policy ambitious as well. They want to have a hand in contributing to the success of the nation and in finding ways of making life better for the people they represent. They also understand the limits of their power, both what a legislator can realistic accomplish, and the fact that legislators might react to events but rarely can control them. This ability to keep oneself in perspective is crucial to a politician. After years in office, it is tempting to think of a legislative seat as an entitlement, as something held by right. It is not. Good politicians understand that. They are good comunicators who genuinely like all kinds of people and are confortarble talking in all kinds of environments. They are accessible to the grand and the humble alike. They are sensitive to the mood in a room, know how to read an audience, and are quickly ro respond. They are open to other points of view. And perhaps most important, they understand that politics involves give and take, and the ability to find common ground. A good politician listen very carefully to those on the other side, not only to learn their arguments,. This is why politics puts a premiun on resourcefulness and intelligence, and tends, over time, to discourage ideological blinkers. Finally, they never forget where they are from and fight hard not to succumb to power fever. They remain loyal to their constituents, and have an abiding faith in the decency, intelligence and patriotism of the voters.

                What are the qualities or characteristics good political leaders should possess? Here are the top 5 characteristics of some of the world's most successful political leaders. 1) HONESTY - Being honesty can sometimes be difficult because it makes individuals vulnerable. Honesty develops character and builds credibility and trust, which are the foundation to evoke confidence and respect from those around you. 2) COMPASSION - Compassion is the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something to alleviate that suffering. Good leaders use compassion to see the needs and to determine the course of action that would be of greatest benefit to all those involved. 3) INTEGRITY - The word integrity is defined as 'the adherence to moral and ethical principles. It is a synonym for honesty and uprightness, and a vital characteristic for those in political leadership. 4) CONFIDENCE - Having confidence in a political leader is about havinf faith or belief that he will act in a proper, or effective way. Leaders who possess this quality inspire others, drawing on a level of trust which sparks the motivation to get others on board and get the job done. 5) FLEXIBILITY - Good politicians listen to all sides, to not only hear their arguments but to lratn what it all parties involved to reach consensus. This also allows politicians to recognize setbacks and criticism, to learn from them and move forward.

                  Political leaders are vitally important, through the authority of government, they assess the distribution of power and resources, build relationships with other stakeholders and make decisions that can have great impact on the well-being of a nation and its people. Leadership in the political framework require a focus on the long-term good of a country, above ahead of any personal short-term gains. Leadership in a political framework require also 'statesmanship', as opposed to just being a 'politician', this mean having the integrity and willingness to stand up for what is right. So, a good political leader is: 1) Someone who serves as an example of integrity and loyalty to the people they represent. 2) Someone with good communications skills and inter-personal skills, who can work with a range of other people, regardless of political party or opinion. 3) Someone who can resist the various temptations and lures of the political arena. 4) Someone of strong character, with both conscience and charisma. 5) Someone willing to listen to the needs of the common people and represent them faithfully. 6) Someone with the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said. Accountability is crucial to effective political leadership, as without this, there will be not respect. A good politician is someone who will be honest and responsible. They will focus their energy and time on representing the people rather than spending all the time "covering their backs" and critising others.

                  In my opinion there are some characteristics of a good or an ideal leader. They are: 1) Has proven track record of accomplishments - Remember that being a politician is also a job, we nned to find out if the person we are voting for is fit to become a leader of our country or city. Does he/she have enough experience? What he/she done so far? We should be diligent enough to find out the personal background of each candidate. 2) Is honest - I am tired of hearing of vote-buying and all those cheating. We need honest leaders. 3) Is not corrupt - We need to spare our country from the humiliation that we are facing globally regarding corrupt leaders. 4) Can represent our country to the world - We need a leader who knows how to converse intelligently. We need a leader who can carry himself well and can stand up like he is implicitly saying "I am Brazilian and proud". We need someone who can uplift the Brazilian image to other countries. 5) Can not be manipulated - No matter how honest a leader is, it will all go to waste when he can easily be manipulated and influenced by people close to him. Vote for someone who can stand up for his own decisions. 6) Has genuine passion to serve - All politicians are there to serve. They are there to uplift the condition of the people and to do what is best for their fellow countrymen. Choose a leader who has been serving already before he has even begun his political career. 7) Has a strong desire to make our country or our city a better place - It is true that many nations have already surpassed Brazil. Many nations have prospered and let us behind. I want a leader who has a strong desire to improve our nation especially in terms of education, infrastructure, poverty, employment, economy, science, technology, health-care and even sports.

Horror Worlds

            This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published with the title above in 2010 at http://www.economist.com/node/17388328. The second was published at ww.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/why-we-care-about-privacy/. The third was published at http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/privacy_why_it_matters_much_more_than_you_think/

            The concern that technology will slowly but surely undermine human freedom is shared by quite a few mainstream thinkers. As this special report has argued, smart systems will improve efficiency. Yet if those systems seriously impinge on people's freedom, many people will balk. The protests against smart meters in Bakerfield and elsewhere may be only the start. Smart systems are rekindling old fears. Top of the list are loss of privacy and goverment surveillance. Internet users have only recently begun to realise that every single thing they do online leaves a digital trace. With smart systems the same thing will increasingly apply to the offline world, Google's Street View is only the beginning. Even the defenders of a smarter planet admit as much. "Some citizens have expressed discomfort at living in not a safer society, but in a 'surveillance society'," said Sam Palmisano, the boss of IBM, in a speech earlier this year. He cited a newspaper article recounting that there are now 32 closed-circuit cameras within 200 yards of the London flat in which George Orwell wrote his book "1984". Mr. Palmisano would be in the wrong job, however, he had not gone on to say that such concerns have to be rethought and to stress the economic and social benefits of smart systems. On the other hand smart systems are also undeniably useful as an instrument of control. Singapore has made an impressive job smartening up its physical infrastructure, but its network of security cameras could also be used for enforcing rules more objectionable than a ban on chewing gum. Similarly, the operations centres for local governments in China being built by Cisco, IBM and others beg the question whether their only purpose is to make these cities smarter. Other deep fears brought on by smart systems is that machines could be hacked, spin out of control and even take over the world, as they did in the film "The Matrix".  And there is a more subtle danger too: that people will come to rely too much on smart systems, Because humans can not cope with the huge amounts of data produced by machines, the machines themselves will increasingly make the decisions, cautions Frank Schirrmacher of the German daily in his recent book. A further worry is that smart technology will ultimately lead to greater inequality. Paul Saffo, a noted Silicon Valley technology forecaster, expects ubiquitous sensors to give a huge boost to productivity, at the expense of human monitors. "We are likely to see more jobless recoveries," he says. Whether computers will indeed to eliminate more jobs than they create remains to be seen. But smart systems certainly represent a conceptual change. So far IT has been used to automate and optimise processes within firms and other organizations as well as the dealings between them. Still, technology progress is not some force of nature that can not be guided. "We can and we should exercise control, by democratic consensus, " says Mr. Gelernter. Yet for a consensus to be reached, there must be openness. The biggest risk is that smart systems becomes black boxes, closed even to citizens who have skills to understand them. Smart systems will make the world more transparent only if they themselves are transparent.

              Privacy is important for a number of reasons. People can be harmed or debilitated if there is no restriction on the public's access to and use of personal information. Other reasons are more fundamental, touching the essence of human personhood. Reverence for the human person as an end in itself and as an autonomous being requires respect for personal privacy. To lose control of one's personal information is in some measure to lose control of one's life and one's dignity. There are many ways a person can be harmed by the revelation of sensitive personal information. Medical records, interviews, financial records, welfare records, sites visited on the internet and a variety of other sources hold many intimate details of a person's life. The revelation of such informaton can leave the subjects vulnerable to many abuses. The information can be misused, or even used for malicious purposes. The insensitive behavior of others can cause the person serious distress and embarrassment. Privacy protection is necessary to safeguard against abuses. Privacy is also needed in the ordinary conduct of human affairs, to facilitate social interchange. Privacy is an essential prerequisite for forming relationships. The degree of intimacy in a relationship is determined in part by how much personal information is revealed. What one tells one's spouse is quite different from what one would discuss with one's employer. If they were always under observation, they could not enjoy the degree of intimacy that a marriage should have. Charles Fried puts it more broadly. Privacy, he writes, is "necessary to relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust...without privacy they are simply inconceivable." The analysis suggest a deeper and more fundamental issue: personal freedom. As Deborah Johnson has observed, "To recognize an individual as an autonomous being, an end in himself, entails letting that individual live his life as he chooses. Of course, there are limits to this, but one of the critical ways that an individual controls his life is by choosing with whom he will have relationships and what kind of relationships these will be. Information mediates relationships. Thus when one can not control who has information about one, one loses considerable autonomy". Even if the person never found out about their prying, the person has lost some of his freedom. The person did not want them to have access to his personal life, but they seized it anyway. Autonomy is part of the broader issue of human dignity, that is, the obligation to treat people not merely as means, to be bought and sold and used, but as valuable and worthy of respect in themselves. Personal information is an extension of the person. To have access to that information is to have access to the person in a particularly intimate way. When some person information is taken and sold, it is as if some part of the person has been alienated and turned into a commodity. In that way the person is treated merely as a thing, a means to be used for some other end. Privacy is even more necessary as a safeguard of freedom in the relationships between individuals and groups. Surveillance is powerful instrument of social control. Under these circumstances they findd it better simply to conform. This is the situation characterized in George Orwell's book 1984, where the pervasive surveillance of "Big Brother" was enough to keep most citizens under rigid control. The ability to develop one's unique individuality is especially important in a democracy, which values and depends on creativity, noncorformism and the free interchange of diverse ideas. That is where a democracy gets its vitality. Just as a social balance favoring surveillance over privacy is a functional necessity for totalitarian systems, so a balance that ensures strong citadels of individual privacy and limits surveillance is a prerequisite for democratic societies. Even apparently harmless gossip, when widely and persistently circulated, is potent for evil. It belittles by inverting the relative importance of things, thus dwarfing the thoughts and aspirations of a people. When personal gossip attains the dignity of print, and crowds the space available for matters of real interest to the community, what wonder that the ignorant and thoughtless mistake its relative importance. Triviality destroy at once robustness of thought and delicacy of feeling. No enthusiasm can flourish, no generous impulse can survive under its blighting influence. For Warren, privacy was a means of protecting the freedom of the virtuous to maintain their values against the corrupting influence of the mass media that catered to people's basest instincts. Although the degrading effect of the mass media is still a problem, there is another serious threat to freedom comes from governments and other large institutions.  For example, Ignazio Silone, in his book Bread and Wine, described the use of surveillance in Fascist Italy in this way: On this degradation of man into a frightened animal, who quivers with fear and hates his neighbor in his fear, and watches him, betrays him, sells him, and then lives in fear of discovery, the dictatorship is based. The real organization on which the system in this country is based is the secret manipulation of fear. While totalitarian regimes may not seem as powerful or as sinister as they did 50 years ago, surveillance is still used in many places as an instrument of oppression. When we speak of privacy, particularly as a right, we focus on the individual. The individual must be shielded from the prying curiosity of others and from discrimination. The individual's autonomy and control over his or her person must be preserved. The individual must be protected from intimidation and coercion. 

               The greatest threat to privacy is a pervasive, shrugging indifference. Many (though not all) citizens are willing to give up a certain amount of their personal information to obtain credit cards, rent movies, post phootos and look at web pages. After all, if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Garret Keizer's book "Privacy" encourages its readers to reframe how they think of privacy before it is too late. Read it to jolt your imagination into new territory, and to understand why the privacy that many of us sacrifice so readily ought to be held more dear. Keizer aims to show that privacy, and respect for privacy, are core humanist values that should be enshrined in the heart of any society aspiring to social justice. He argues this against two distinct points of view that treat privacy as unimportant. The first, and by far the most common regards privacy as a relatively minor right that can  and often should cede in favor of commerce or security. But there is another type of skepticism towards privacy rights, who dismiss it as a bourgeoise concern. There is an abundance of thought in  the book "Privacy". Keizer has a way of turning lazy notions inside out to exhibit their fallacies. To the tech moguls who seems to think we ought to blithely hand over our personal information, he retorts, "were privacy not a good thing, the wealthier among us would not enjoy more of it than the less wealthy do." Mark Zuckerberg does not live in a fishbowl. Keizer's observations on the embattled privacy of the poor, the distinctions between privacy and loneliness and the essential link between the degradation of life and disrespect for the sanctuary of private life will serve readers of all political flavors. I am convinced by Keizer's argument that a society that does not value our personal privacy can not plausibly claim to value our humanity. This may be a far bigger conundrum than one book can solve, but "Privacy" is a step in the right direction.

The Importance of Dystopian Literature

          This post is a little class about dystopian literature. I know very well what it is, and I hope all the readers of my blog can understand more about this evil. In order to value more democracy, human rights, an independent judiciary(justice), and solidarity, we have to know what must be avoided. Unpunished human rights violation, a dysfunctional democracy, the people afraid and a corrupt government is the first step to become a dystopia.   This post is a summary of three articles, The first with the title above, was published in May of 2015 at http://emertainmentmonthly.com/index.php/the-importance-of-dystopian-literature. The second was published at https://deegarretson.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/why-ya-dystopian-fiction-is-important/. The third was published in 2014 at http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3460&context=honors_theses

            The recent surge of dystopian literature that has gained massive attention and reeled in huge profits at the box office has also brought many crucial issues and ideas to the forefront of the media. For one point, dystopian literature like The Hunger Games and Divergent have given young women their own place to be action stars and to save the world, where very few question their gender, and instead focus on their determination and strength. Dystopian literature has helped to also highlight many social ills that society can use as red flags to determine if the power system has gone too far. Things such as declaring love a disease, where people are "cured" to prevent them from acting on passion, as in Delirium trilogy, or the brutality of sending children into an arena to fight to the death as in The Hunger Games, are very clearly wrong, and the government overstepping their boundaries. Readers immediately recognize that doing such things are clear infringements on human rights. While the issues commonly found in dystopia shed light on the horrors of the denial of basic human rights, the fascination that comes from consuming these forms of media raises a drastic problem. The Hunger Games franchise has made millions of dollars, and it has also spawned a very problematic culture, where consumers can find dolls of heroes like Katniss and Peeta, and make up by the label of "Capital Couture," based off the very institution within Panen that sends children to die in the first place. Readers and viewers are often looking at these dystopian societies and thinking, "This could never happen in real life", but the unfortunate truth is that it already is. On a smaller scale, particularly to minority groups, these infringements on civil rights are already happening every day, and unfortunately, one does not have to look much further to see that. Among the dystopia genre, a very large portion of the young leading rebellions and fighting oppression are ladies. They fight with bravery and determination, and readers sympathize with them and understand that they are being deprived of their basic human rights. But it raises the question: is dystopia what we get when the struggles and oppression faced by minority groups happen to people of all genders, races, backgound, and orientations? The dystopia genre has provided an incredible platform for young girls to finally picture themselves as the heroes, to take down oppressive governments, to stand up for what they believe, and make a difference, which was a much needed change. As reader take in the words on the page and viewers on the screen and both are horrified by the atrocities being committed, it should also be a cue to look at their own world and recognize when the same atrocities are happening on a smaller scale. The enjoyment and thrill that readers get from reading about these adventures does come at an expense, and the expense that some of these events are happening already, right under their noses. While these books serve as a warning and a view of what the world could become, they should also be opening eyes, and opening them wide enough to see what is happening right now. 

              Some of the most memorable books I read as a teen were dystopian stories, what were categorized most often as science fiction back when I was reading them. I have been fascinated to see the rise in popularity of dystopian fiction in recent years. My conflicted feelings about dystopians, and the change in how I read them made me wonder what exactly it is about them that pulls people in. Clearly, the intensity of the emotion is one reason, and with so many good stories, the feeling of wondering how you, the reader, would feel and act if you were in those situations. Dystopians are important beyond the story though, because outside of getting drawn into fascinating and unique situations, these types of books show that the world as we know it is not the only possibility. These stories raise the questions of "what if?" what if a science experiment had gone wrong? What if a disease that could not be controlled? What if a crazy person had come to power and others had not tried to fight him? What if we let only a few dictate the rules of society? While no one is purposefully reading dystopians for the lessons they can teach, they can make readers aware that paying attention to how society functions is important. They can show us that we can not assume the future will follow a perfect path, and we maybe be able to influence a part of it in what we choose to do with our lives, in how involved we get in the political process, in how we raise our children, or in what we study and pursue as a career. All in all, they expand the bubble each of us live in to see the greater world beyond us. And that is a good thing. I want my own children to read these books. If you are looking for some classic dystopian books to read to see what came before the current dystopia trend, here is a list of a few possibilities: 1) Brave New World by Aldous Haxley. 2) Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. 3) Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. 4) On the Beach by Nevil Shute. 5) Earth Abides by George Stewart. 

                 Dystopian literature is a trend, after Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games, dystopian literature has become the forefront of teen reading, especially with the adapted film versions of the trilogy. Citizens in a dystopian world have to deal with "harshly repressive societies" that constrict any free thought or individuality. A dystopia is usually a future world that extends and distorts modern day issues into a dehumanized state in which controls have been forced upon society and its inhabitants through social and physical limitations that restrict many aspects of life. The influence of Collins' trilogy has created a desire within teens to start picking up more dystopian texts and find connections and solutions within their own lives, which is one of the genre's main purposes. Dystopian literature is didactic in nature in a sense that the "first-person narration, engaging dialoguue, or even diary entries imparting accessible messages" not only draws readers in but also encourages them to think critically about injustices in their communities  and in the world at large. In every successful dystopian novel, readers can count on encountering one or more of these major commonalities: 1) individuals in charge with absolute power. 2) a strong protagonist who has been shaped by his or her current situation. 3) a dismal conclusion that leaves the reader feeling slightly uneasy. Whether it is the government, a police force, or overbearing rules imposed on the society, the oppressive force, which also can be the society itself, is so strong that most people living in the given story have lost the ability to think for themselves. Another common trend within dystopian literature is the conformity that almost completely erases any trace of individual thoughts or behaviors. The lack of individual thinking stems from the dystopian society's "embrace their uniformity out of a fear that diversity breeds conflict". The oppressive powers within the dystopia posit the fact that if everyone is in consent and there is no contention with one another, then no problems will occur. Conformity in dystopia is used to show the effects that ensue when the government has pushed the boundary between unity and blindly obeying without question or concern. While conformity traps individuals's right to expression, there is also enslavement and silencing. Mind control, economic constraint, and emotional restrictions depict societies that dehumanize the citizens, creating a sense of need that keeps the inhabitants perpetually in debt. Dystopian genre has been on the rise, understanding the genre and what the trends imply for readers is important.